22597. Misbranding of Vagitone. IJ. S. v. Philip D. Vincent (Vincent Lab- 
oratories). Plea of guilty. Fine, 85 and costs. (F. & D. no. 31494. 
Sample no. 29603-A.)
Examination of the drug product Vagitone disclosed that it contained no 
ingredient or combination of ingredients capable of producing certain curative 
and therapeutic effects claimed in the labeling. Bacteriological examination 
showed that the article was not antiseptic.
On May 17, 1934, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of 
Texas, acting upon a report by the Secretary of Agriculture, filed in the district 
court an information against Philip D. Vincent, trading as the Vincent Lab- 
oratories, Texarkana, Tex., alleging shipment by said defendant, in violation 
of the Food and Drugs Act as amended, on or about February 11, 1933, from 
the State of Texas into the State of Arizona, of a quantity of Vagitone which 
was misbranded.
Analysis of a sample of the article by this Department showed that it con- 
sisted of glycerin, boric acid, phenols, small proportions of zinc oxide, quinine 
sulphate, thymol and oxyquinoline sulphate, and water, colored with a green 
dye. Bacteriological examination showed that the article failed to kill 
Staphylococcus aureus in 15 minutes at 37° C, when tested undiluted and 
was neither antiseptic, nor powerfully antiseptic.
It was alleged in the information that the article was misbranded in that 
certain statements, designs, and devices regarding the therapeutic and curative 
effects of the article, appearing on the bottle and carton labels and in leaflets 
and a circular shipped with the article, falsely and fraudulently represented 
that it was effective as a very efficient remedy recommended as an aid to the 
physician in the treatment of leucqrrhoea, vaginal catarrh, inflammation of 
the genital organs and the various diseases of the vagina and uterus, and 
various inflammatory diseases of the vaginal tract; effective as a treatment for 
abnormal discharges of various nature in women after they have reached 
maturity; effective to insure the therapeutic action desired in female illness; 
effective as of medicinal value in the treatment of ailments peculiar to women; 
effective to heal permanently lacerations resulting from childbirth; and effec- 
tive to arrest profuse menstruation.   Misbranding was alleged for the further
reason that the statement, " Powerfully Antiseptic", borne on the carton and 
bottle labels, and the statements, "Powerfully Antiseptic Directions For 
Using. Insert the glass barrel of the syringe in the bottle and then withdraw 
the plunger, thus sucking the fluid into the barrel", " Powerfully Antiseptic 
* * * Directions For Using. Fill the syringe by inserting the glass barrel 
in the bottle and pulling the plunger up until the required amount of the 
fluid has been drawn in", borne on the leaflets, were false and misleading, 
since the article was not powerfully antiseptic when used as directed.
On May 21, 1934, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to the information, 
and the court imposed a fine of $5 and costs.
M. L. WILSON, Acting Secretary of Agriculture.